How can a formula be patented when you can't even copyright a recipe (and that's all ink is, a recipe of dyes)?

As for patents on toner cartridges, I imagine if they were specific enough to get a patent for it (I know, I know, I'm not new around here, I know stupid patents get granted all the time), chances are they wouldn't need to worry about after-market producers.

You don't seem too familiar with the various types of intellectual property and how they are regulated. Copyright is not patent. You can indeed copyright a recipe. You can also patent it. The entire drug industry depends on it. The more specific the patent, the easier it is for someone to make a trivial change to the recipe and outflank the patent. As such, it is advisable to make one's patent application as general as possible. Whether you believe that is bad or good, it is the law. As for the specifics of toner cartridges, I'd be very surprised if any particular cartridge was only covered by one patent.

Forgive me, but can you indeed copyright a recipe? I thought you couldn't copyright a fact (e.g. the mix of ingredients), but only the process (mix for 30 seconds, then rest). I mean come on, recipes are ripped off constantly....
I'd like some references please, for my own education.

How do I protect my recipe?A mere listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. Note that if you have secret ingredients to a recipe that you do not wish to be revealed, you should not submit your recipe for registration, because applications and deposit copies are public records. See FL 122, Recipes.

What amazes me more is that you can patent the business model of making incredibly shitty, slapshod products with pickup rollers that invariably break by the 250th page.

Next they'll have a business model patent on convincing companies like Dell to throw their reputation down the toilet by rebranding the aforementioned shitty products and selling them with their own brand name slapped on.

What amazes me more is that you can patent the business model of making incredibly shitty, slapshod products with pickup rollers that invariably break by the 250th page.

Well, it's not far from patenting a downright shady business model, seeing as they're blatantly using the patent system to block third-party cartridges. One assumes that the actual patent as submitted does not read:

"US Patent 1234567890: Mechanism to con the consumer into spending rather more money than they had hoped by forcing third-party consumable manufacturers out of the market".

Not only can you patent an ink recipe as a method, but you can also patent the ink itself as a composition of matter. Really, this is the sort of thing that patents have traditionally covered for hundreds of years. The real question is whether there's prior art out there that didn't come up during examination.

A toner cartridge is just a plastic box full of wet ink (for an inkjet) or dry toner (for a laser), right?

Wrong.

If you're Lexmark, it also contains a chip which does various (patented) things that the printer uses to confirm it's got a genuine Lexmark cartridge installed. Abracadabra, you can now use patent protection to ensure that only your exorbitantly expensive cartridges get used.

If you couldn't patent a formula, how could Monsanto patent its chemicals, or Merck patent its drugs? Now, note that patents ane copyrights are two entirely different animals. Patents last twenty years and cover inventions and processes, while copyright lasts longer than a human being and covers "writings".

You can't copyright a recipe, but you can copyright its presentation. I have various cookbooks, all of them have copyrights -- but the copyright is on the book, not the recipes inside it.

I mean really? Every printer of quality I've seen in the last 3 years (and I use the word 'quality' loosely) has been an Xerox, HP or Canon. Maybe they should spend some time building things people want to buy. Could be wrong of course. Often am.

Every single Lexmark printer we've bought in the past 6 years died within 18-months (not by my choice obviously). That's including the cheap inkjets and their bigger workgroup lasers. Most of the inkjets simply melted their power supplies. They also sucked that really expensive ink down really quick.

I don't mean to debunk anecdotal evidence with more of the same, but I have a Lexmark z2940 wireless printer here that I just setup to use wireless: downloaded the drivers (running Windows 7), installed them, plugged into the USB cable when prompted to so it could configure the wireless, joined my wireless network with my key, unplugged the USB cable when prompted, then finished the setup. Prints fine using wireless.

Except for the fact that the ink cartridges are either empty or dried up...

I don't mean to debunk anecdotal evidence with more of the same, but I have a Lexmark z2940 wireless printer.... Prints fine using wireless.

Except for the fact that the ink cartridges are either empty or dried up...

You mean the z2420? Looking at Walmart online, the printer costs $39, the black ink cartridge is $30 and a color cartridge is $32. You validated the comments that the original ink cartridges are only partially filled (ala HP) and dry up really fast.

Most of the reviews on this model are horrible, such as CNET giving it 1.5/5 stars and most comments talking about poor printouts and jamming.

I have a pair of industrial Lexmark wide carriage printers that only cost 40 bucks for a cartridge that last for 40k triple carbonless sheets($2k for the printer, though). Actually came with the circuit layout, diagnostic procedures, and replacement instructions for every piece, including those that need soldering.

Alas, $700 for a motherboard, which I found out after a storm found its way through the onboard serial port. Went for a a $900 refurb instead, as I might be switching t

That's because HP appears to care about Linux. They release real open-source drivers that can be included by all Linux distros, even ones like Debian and Fedora that have very strict rules about licensing.

HP products maybe aren't the best value for money, but anyone who cares about open source drivers should definitely consider taking their custom to one of the few companies that gets it.

Brother's drivers are open-source, and available... they just don't seem to be included in the repositories. Most of my experience is with Ubuntu, and a Brother FAX 4100, laser+fax printer. The fax functionality is separate from print. The printer shows up as a straight laser printer, no fax out or scanning, which is fine with me... It's just having to download from the Brother website and install the drivers is a bit too manual for my taste in this day and age, where most other OSes simply detect and do

Unless you do a crazy amount of greater than 8x10 prints you're probably better off with a cheap laser and Walgreens/Costco/etc with a real mini-lab, better quality than any sub $5,000 printer, prints will last a lifetime or more, and it's cheaper per print when you consider all costs.

I'm thinking of retiring my Epson R1800 soon -- any good recommendations for a large format photo quality printer?

I really wouldn't bother. Find a reliable lab and send it there.

You won't have as much control over the finished article but you won't be wasting time tearing your hair out trying to get a half-decent print. Lab machines are built to do one thing and do it well - churn out print after print cost-effectively, reliably and quickly. By and large they're pretty good at it.

Inkjet printers are built to do one thing and do it well. Extract absurd quantities of money from you reliably and quickly. By and large

My parents recently got an HP all in one, I'm quite impressed with the way it works. Seems to do a decent job with all the tasks I've set it to do, the only annoyance is that the wireless support seems to be a bit flaky, as in it doesn't seem to get along with my open-mesh set up.

Oh, almost certainly. And possibly any emoticons on the sides of the ink cartridges as well. Ink formulae - that might be a stronger case, provided it is not a trivial derivative of any standard or historic ink. However, an ink formula can't be both patented and trade secret at the same time. That's a no-no. Has anyone actually looked at their ink patents to see if they're violating the patent rules there? (Dumb question - no, nobody has; yes, they are.)

I had an Epson inkjet which I actually liked quite a bit until I used some off brand cartridges. I went through 2 generic black cartridges without a perceivable difference in quality. Eventually I had to replace the color cartridges and the printer stopped working. Thinking the generics were just bad, I went out and purchased all new genuine cartridges, which also didn't work. A call to Epson tech support confirmed that the printer essentially is bricked when one tries to use generic cartridges.

There are basically two kinds of ink used in inkjet printers. Solvent-based and water-based.

Solvent-based inks are generally used for the kind of inkjet printers where some resistive element heats up the ink to make a tiny bubble of gas to push out the ink. Water-based inks are typically used where some mechanical device is used to push out the ink, such as a piezoelectric element. Since the majority of printers are of the resistive variety, most third-party inks are solvent based.

I called their tech support after trying to get one of their printers to work on Linux. This was before I found out that they use a non-standard and proprietary way to communicate between computer and printer.

The tech asks me if I'm using Windows XP or Vista. I say I'm using Linux. He's says "Windows Linux?" "No, just Linux." "Oh, okay, Windows 98." From there he proceeded to give me help based off the idea that I was running Microsoft Windows 98 Linux Edition.

I disagree. Decent GPS units give quite good directions, if you filter them using your head. I may simply be unwilling to spend the time noting every twist-and-turn down. In the old days, people used city maps to look up an address, and presumably you wouldn't consider it insulting. I still have such an archaic map in my car and use it occasionally. It's easier to browse it than the map on the GPS.

If I prefer to use a map, or a GPS, it doesn't mean I'm sociopathic. It may simply mean that I've been around p

The problem is that "intimately familiar" doesn't mean the same to everyone. Have you ever tried to get directions from someone who hasn't got a clue what streets are named, only that they turn left at the corner with the green gas station, then right at the tree that looks kind of like their grandpa?

The only thing more infuriating is the person who lists every intersection you go straight through. "Next you'll come to Crystal Falls Drive." "So I turn r

GPS are only as good as the map data and some time that data does not showit's a non truck road.it's been closes off.the ramps where re routed and you can't go that way any more and you have to take a different way to get there.They reworked a one way systems map does not show the new way.A easier and better way is not in the map yet.

Actually, a GPS is like a religion. Follow me here. If you put all your faith in the voice from the sky, it will see you home safely. As soon as you start to doubt and second guess it, to ask "is this really giving me the best route?" -- it stops working and you end up going the wrong way.

The person giving directions is a prick. A bigger prick than the one asking for the address. Why ignore everything someone is saying? That's being a prick. Answer the question. Then, if there's a known GPS issue, then add in that piece of info. But to ignore what someone is asking and just answering what you think they mean drives me crazy. I'd rather they did me the service of listening to my question and then I get lost, rather than never listening to what I say.

I don't know about you, but unless I know an area well myself I can't keep more than two or three steps of driving directions in my head. Potentially writing it all down works, but that presumes I know which bits of the information are the important ones. "Turn left at the red maple on elm where the speed bumps end" will probably get transcribed as "Left at maple - Elm bumps Stop." Ten minutes later, looking at that in a car, I might see a big red tree sail by, wonder which elm tree becomes the maple, an

The weird thing, I have a Lexmark (x204n) which fully supports Linux, even to the point of having Tux on the box alongside the Mac and Windows logos. Even scanning with xsane works. Too bad the printer itself is kind of crappy...

One more company takes the patent troll route after finding out they are incapable of manufacturing something worth owning in the first place. Unfortunately HP printers are approaching Lexmark quality levels and not the other way around. I hate both companies, but obviously avoid Lexmark like the plague. I usually don't even bother trying to troubleshoot them or buy new roller kits -- I just replace the lexmarks with HPs.

I just don't buy ibk printers... if someone *HAS* to have one (they'd better be printing a few items a week, to keep the ink/jets from clogging), I usually suggest cannon much better long term cost wise. HP Lasers, haven't really had negative issues with, relatively speaking.

I usually ignore stories about hardware patents, but this one highlights a problem that exists in software patents: interoperability is essential.

Microsoft can develop a wonky filesystem (FAT), and use their market power to force it on everyone. When they finally realise that 8-letter filenames is a broken idea, they add a fix, patent the fix, and sue people who use the fix.

That fix isn't patentable because it's valuable, it's simply valuable because it's patented. It's an arbitrary idea, not necessarily better than any other solution (of avoiding the problem in the first place!), but it becomes a must-have because it's the idea Microsoft chose to implement.

Same with Word. Microsoft patents a few features in their file format and they're essential. You develop your own file format and patent some features, and they just get avoided by Micrsoft and nobody cares about your patents. How good your patents are, or how they compare to Microsoft's patents, is of no consequence.

And so it is with Lexmark. They make cartridges in a certain way. Might be good, might be wonky. You can patent a better idea, but it's useless because you're not looking for "best", you're looking for "compatible".

> that's not what happened. [...] People used FAT because it did what they wanted

Microsoft had a dominant position on the desktop. Being incompatible with Microsoft would have been a show-stopper. Microsoft's filesystem was FAT, so if you wanted to be compatible, with then-current Windows and will all future versions, then you use FAT.

For your disagreement, a link to a contradictory story would be very interesting. Or if you don't have a link (and I won't hold it against you, given that I've no

Anyway, for those looking for alternatives, Brother doesn't chip their cartridges, and the ink is not criminally expensive. Anyone know of other brands?

Another option is to buy a continuous ink system; often these include compatible chips so you can bypass the manufacturer. Though, finding good CIS and quality inks may be somewhat troublesome. Any suggestions here?

I was able to use after market cartridges in my (former) Epson printer. However it gave up the ghost after about 6 years... it was a high end model (11x17) used often in preprint or for photographic art and even by wedding photographers. Still... the after market cartridges worked great and the colours were fine... and were way cheaper than brand name. I got rid of it a year ago so I'm not sure what the deal is with newer models.

You cannot sell your 'fake' inkt with less than a 2000% profit... And even then we will lose a 1000%... Seriously printer inkt is not more expensive than gold. It just isn't no matter what they let you pay for it. For this very reason I never buy inkt. We have come in the absurd situation that is quite a lot cheaper to just buy a new printer with the 1000 pages worth of filling you get with it.

Well they have have their inkt and make it as expensive as they want but all everybody else cares about is ink. They really need to lower the price of the ink, maybe even charge a bit more for printers.

speaking of gold, just how does printer ink compare for price, ounce for ounce, with gold?

And really, how much can it cost to make the stuff? It's little wonder that with such an insane profit margin that they get litigious, they have all the money in the world to play patent bully and feed their sharks.

Can't beat the competition - sue them. What this tells me is that Lexmark doesn't have a good enough value proposition on their replacement toners. If they offered even close to equal value to the knockoffs, or the knockoffs had a bad rep for damaging people's printers, there wouldn't be a problem.

Why would you assume that people using a "Lexxmark" toner cartridge that is half the price would not sue Lexmark if their printer subsequently failed? I know plenty of people that would believe the printer was obviously defective if it failed to properly accept and use whatever toner was put in it.

After all, if your expensive replacable-ink-cartridge pen fails to operate it must be defective, no matter what sort of ink cartridge is used, right? The fact that the printer might be a little bit more complica

What Lexmark is fighting about is most likely not the cartridges themselves as containers of ink, but rather the chips. Makers of third-party cartridges have to reverse-engineer Lexmark's chips which prevent users from refilling cartridges.

You can fight this nonsense by not buying Lexmark, Canon, HP, Epson, etc.

Brother is making some great printers these days, and have Linux support for almost all of them. Linux Support = support for CUPS, LPD and SANE. Many of the drivers are GPL, so you can get code from Brother's website. Many of the drivers are in Ubuntu's repos, so most of the time you can just apt-get.

Most print features are implemented. Also, Brother's ink is not chipped, and you can buy genuine Brother ink for about $9/cartridge or get third party ink for about $3 per cartridge (you can probably refill, too, but for $3 per, why mess with it). The cleaning cycles don't tap the ink on Brother printers the way they do on Lexmark either. I had a Lexmark years ago that would get about 40 pages out over one month and need $60 worth of ink.

The only thing with Brother is that their printers are $10-$20 more than the comparable Lexmark or Brother, but you'll get you $20 back on the first round of ink.

Evidently you've not shopped for a laser printer recently. Toner isn't any cheaper. I think they migrated the laser printers to inkjet printer model some time ago. Cost of toner cartridge today can go over a hundred dollars easily. Some manufacturers even have built in page counters on toner cartridges that would refuse to print once certain page count is reached, irrespective of the actual amount of toner remaining in the cartridge.

Evidently you've not shopped for a laser printer recently. Toner isn't any cheaper. I think they migrated the laser printers to inkjet printer model some time ago. Cost of toner cartridge today can go over a hundred dollars easily. Some manufacturers even have built in page counters on toner cartridges that would refuse to print once certain page count is reached, irrespective of the actual amount of toner remaining in the cartridge.

The cost per page for toner is less than the cost per page for ink. For exa

Toner is CHEAP, third party carts for my Brother are.35c/page, even the Brother carts are only.8c/page, yes that's correct they are less than a penny a page, you'll spend more on the paper than the toner =) Bigger printers are even cheaper per page, but obviously come with a bigger acquisition cost and the cost of a single consumable replacement is more than my printer with 2,500 page starter cart ($99).

Some people want good colour prints that are not standard size. I'm curious if lasers are any better at creating good photo quality prints on high end photo paper like can be done on good ink jet printers? Or are ink jets still the way to go?

I bought a samsung clx-3175, disobeyed the instructions on maximum weight paper stock (I bought some thick kodak glossy photo print paper, and put it in the paper tray, one sheet at a time, on top of a stack of ordinary paper), and the prints are REALLY nice. The paper makes all the difference.

I really hate this mindset... do you really think that people are powerless? I mean, the only reason that unionization wasn't more effective earlier on is because the corp's used the government to bully strikers. If more consumers were well informed they'd buy smarter... If a telecom pisses you off, you switch, no gov't subsidies, companies die... No bailouts? Car companies compete or die.

I'm a bit more pragmatic than most libertarian minded people, but feel that citizen activism, and civics are part og what a free market is... I do think government has its place though. I do think process and design patents (including all software) should be limited to 5 years, as a special class of patent, that copyright law should return to sanity, 20 years, and renewable once if owned solely by the original owner(s) and all original owners are living persons (not companies) and that trademarks should be used for thier original purpose, not bullying or fair use in comparisons.

I really hate this mindset... do you really think that people are powerless?

Certainly not, but at this point they're apathetic and ignorant. Never mind that the GP was suggesting we basically hand the reins of power over to corporations which are way more powerful than any one individual.

Certainly not, but at this point they're apathetic and ignorant. Never mind that the GP was suggesting we basically hand the reins of power over to corporations which are way more powerful than any one individual.

You are severely mistaken. The government is ran by banks/insurance companies/military industrial complex/big pharma/food/energy/mining/etc.

They government is completely ran by these corporations. This shouldn't have happened, but it did. So while you are saying I am for corporations taking over, I am arguing the government today consists of corporations already, and those corporations are using government power to keep themselves monopolies and to bail themselves out. What you do not see, is that the US

it's certainly not for lack of trying! take the RIAA for instance: they've been on a "education" campaign in schools for years now, trying to convince kids that copyright law essentially means the RIAA wins, no ifs, ands, or buts.

or like in health insurance and big pharma, where the average citizen simply lacks the needed specialized education to understand complex medical terminology.

and history has borne out that when a corporation or similar entity has unbridled freedom, they WILL do whatever they want to establish their own economic and political dominance. let's look at Microsoft: they essentially HAD an unregulated monopoly, up until the Fed (and the EU) came and put a stop to it. the government solutions were STILL ineffectual; Microsoft simply adapted (and i'm treading dangerously close to Gates of Borg here), and there's really still no viable OS alternative save Mac OS. it took Apple and Google to knock Microsoft down a peg. and both of those companies have really problematic practices, too.

government regulation is NECESSARY. there's a fine balance, but leave corporations alone and they WILL abuse the people. stockholders don't care so long as they make profit. with government, at least we can vote abusive politicians out, no capital required.

Yeah, but if copyright and patent law were far saner, we'd probably be far better off, if MS didn't make the concessions needed to compete with open-source it'd be far worse... Linus did far more to open up MS than the government ever did, and if it weren't for software patents, would be farther along.

First, please give an example of one market that has ever been free of taxes, laws and regulations. Now that we have the reality that free markets never have and never will exist we can get real. Although I am no fan of American car companies I am aware that these companies tend to be part of our national defense supply chain. Without them we would not be able to defend ourselves. Then there is the issue of economic ruin for eve

Wow, I'm astonished that you even bothered to post that. The US economy isn't dying, it's been worse and while we'll have a period of stagflation thanks to the massive debt and incompetence of the Bush administration and the shrink government crowd, it will ultimately pull out of it. Probably with higher taxes and almost certainly more services. The private sector is if anything else even less efficient than the public sector is thanks to the fact that we don't get a say at all in who runs those businesses.

But why is government helping corporations or anybody for that matter with 'trade secrets' and basically getting involved in fixing monopolies by killing off competition? That's the question. The answer is of-course because people with money want this and people in gov't are willing to take the bribes and the rest don't understand how they've been just had.

We should not care about trade secrets, we shouldn't be in business helping to create monopolies. We should promote any competition that's possible, we

While Adam Smith agreed with you that IP shouldn't exist at all, in contemporary society the general agreement is that it's needed. The problem isn't that it exists, the problem is that it's become somewhat larger and more extreme than what is really necessary. Patents, trademarks and copyrights as they were up to the early part of the 20th century didn't cause a lot of trouble, mainly because they didn't last very long. You got it for a short period of time to make back your investment and after that it wa

Nope. Trade secrets, patents and copyrights are orthogonal concepts, they cover separate issues. Patents used to provide insight -- to the point where HP would publish firmware to their instruments within a patent, these days the ratio of signal to noise is so bad that you can't tell much. Patents and copyrights, in the U.S., were created to provide a time-limited monopoly to further development of useful arts and sciences. Trade secrets are there to protect know-how from being sold out by employees.

The theory on a patent is that anyone skilled in the art - an engineer for machinery, a chemist for drugs, etc. - would be able to build the object using the information in the patent. Now it's not the engineers and chemists that write them, it's the corporate lawyers. So rather than "heat @ 97deg C for 30 minutes" you get "apply heat for an extended period of time". Of course, only 97 deg C for 30 min works, but by not telling you that, they keep a trade secret reality while getting protection in case it t

LJ4250's have been pretty damn reliable for us, probably more so than any printer HP made since the LJ4, and they are freaking fast little buggers. They're not cheap at ~$1,000 to start, but for a business they are fairly negligible. I wish HP's scanner and finishers didn't suck so badly so we could get rid of our Xerox MFP's.